Air NZ still treats all men as pedophiles
February 27th, 2006 at 8:47 pm by David FarrarAir New Zealand is sticking to its policy of treating all of its male passengers as potential pedophiles with its ban on seating unaccompanied children next to male passengers.
Wayne Mapp makes the excellent point that if one supports the policy on the basis of an increased risk from men (which there is) then an airline could have a policy not to seat children beside young Maori men on the basis of the higher crime rate of young Maori men. That is just as offensive as applying it to all men.
Mapp also points out that neither Air NZ nor Qantas have been able to point to a single case where a man did something harmful to an unaccompanied child on an aircraft.
Air NZ should do the sensible thing and have a more flexible policy which deals with preferences, not bans. For example if I was Air NZ my policy for seats next to unaccompanied children would be below. Note I would never ever get a passenger to move seats to get a higher ranked passenger next to a child. I would just use the system to choose the best unallocated seat:
1) No-one (empty seat)
2) An accompanied child
3) A couple travelling together
4) An elderly woman travelling alone
5) An elderly man travelling alone
6) A woman travelling alone
7) A man travelling alone
8) Cactus Kate
9) Me
Asking male passengers to move seats because they are banned from being next to a child is just offensive and insulting.
Related posts:
- Anti-PC in The Telegraph
- All men are paedophiles!
- Woodham on airline gender policy
- Woodham on airline gender policy
February 27th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
Not to mention the fact that women get penalised as free surrogate child-minders for the flight. I’m surprised there aren’t more female travellers complaining.
Vote:February 27th, 2006 at 9:21 pm
Rating youself a little high there aren’t you?
I’m sure the government has classified your ideas as potentially harmful to yoof.
Vote:February 27th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
This still seems marvellously politically correct from Mapp though. Standing up for the theoretical rights of the stereotyped, oppressed man even though it actually makes little or no difference beyond a minor degree of offense.
Isn’t standing up for theoretical rights and avoiding minor offense what being PC is all about?
I’m still waiting for Mapp to eradicate himself.
That said, I’d rather see Air NZ adopt a sensible policy. So funnily enough I find myself agreeing with Mapp. But then, I don’t have a problem with being PC.
Vote:February 27th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
I like the policy. Who wants to be a child minder, that is woman’s work or at least that is what Air New Zealand think. The paedophile thing is just a red herring.
Vote:February 27th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
I think its worse that all airlines discriminate against light people.
Airlines should have a total weight limit of perhaps 120kg (personal+luggage). Elephants can still take 20kg of baggage on flights making a whopping combined weight of 200kg+ whereas the lightest people may only have a combined personal+luggage weight of 80kg.
Why the discrimination?
Vote:February 27th, 2006 at 9:34 pm
i know a little off topic – but would position no.10 be Mr Benson-Pope / Dover Samuals / or any other sleazy politician?
Vote:February 27th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
Oh goody we’re going personal abuse now.
Ok.
Hey bollard heres an idea, why not raise a second mortgage on your house and rent a fucking brain for an hour.
The lack of one is allowing the shit to flow straight out your mouth.
Now get back to scripting Helens next defense of DP-B and let the grown ups talk.
Vote:February 27th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
Damn, bollard had to go.
Never mind.
Vote:February 27th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
There is one reported case on a British Airways flight of a man exposing himself to a young girl seated next to him and asking her to handle it. She got very upset shortly thereafter, ran to the cabin crew and the man found himself greeted at the gate by some Police. So it has happened, just not to Air NZ and Qantas – and given the size of British Airways and the sheer number of passengers, odds are this thing will happen occasionally. The airline has its seating policy, and that is fine – but damned if I am moving when I am seated for its convenience! Pre allocate properly so people are not embarrassed!
Vote:February 27th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
In our every so litigious world where one lawsuit and the attendant bad publicity can wreak havoc, I can understand why airlines are risk adverse to the point of absurdity. But Libertyscott does have a point – in a highly competitive industry why would you want to risk humiliating a passenger on a fully-booked flight by asking them to step away from the child and putting out a call for any woman willing to swap seats?
When this story broke, what really surprised me was how weak and *ahem* fluid Air New Zealand’s rationale was. If you want to run a safety line, then perhaps we should be told the gender breakdown of so-called ‘air rage’ incidents where passengers, often under the influence of alcohol, go postal on fellow passengers or cabin crew. How women have perpetrated highjackings or terrorist incidents on airplanes? I suspect the overwhelming majority of perpetrators are male, so perhaps airlines should refuse to carry men fullstop.
Then Air New Zealand ran the “it’s what our customers want” argument. All I’ve to say to that is it’s a shame David Irving isn’t in a position to book airline tickets on behalf of his daughter. I could just imagine the cabin crew making this announcement, “are there any women of impeccable Aryan descent who’d like to make a little girl’s psychotic daddy very happy?”
Vote:February 27th, 2006 at 11:06 pm
“Not to mention the fact that women get penalised as free surrogate child-minders for the flight. I’m surprised there aren’t more female travellers complaining.”
Well said.
Vote:February 27th, 2006 at 11:52 pm
I’m sorry, but these guys are right: it is discrimination against women, not men. I would want to be asked no to sit next to some spoilt little rich brat.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 2:41 am
Air NZ’s policy seems fine by me and using statistics about young maori men in situations where all you know that’s relevant about the individuals in question is their group membership also seems to me fine, so Mapp’s allegedly excellent point strikes me as weak. (How to make the argument in a US context: most victims of black criminals are black so not apportioning police resources, focussing procedures etc. in ways that reflect actual statistics *guarantees* under-protection of black victims of crime. Not sure immediately how to convert that point to the case at hand, but Mapp’s, yes, PC fleeing from the truth and rationality in action (not – contra err – anything about minor offense and theoretical rights!), if generally applied, would seriously discriminate against black victims.)
Note too that Farrar’s more complicated procedure would not pass muster *if* Air NZ’s basic procedure fails on anti-discrimination law/Human Rights Act grounds (which of course I think it doesn’t). Compare reforming a system of not hiring members of group F (for their F-ness) by a system in which members of group F (because of their F-ness) are hired only when no non-F’s are available (lexically inferior hiring). If you aren’t legally permitted to *not hire* F’s for their F-ness then you aren’t allowed to *lex-inf-hire* them (because it’s still differential, detrimental treatment) for that reason either.
Center-right, so bad….. Labour, so lucky….
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 6:41 am
Jules why are you asuming “rich brat”?
One of the most common reasons for a child flying solo is a visitation between divorced parent’s. More common among the not so rich we that we can affors a lear jet crowd.
Stephen your rationale is bollocks and driven purely by political bias.
Craig, women are in fact more often the ones being hauled off the plane in handcuff after getting hammered an abusive.
Attracting attention to man by making him move because you want to seat a child and he is potentially going to try and rape the child midflight is a gross humilitation for the passenger and a clear violation of his human rights.
This policy is based on predudice and lazy proceedure.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 7:10 am
It is possible to be against affirmative action and pro-racial/sexual/whatever profiling. You could make the argument that when you’re considering something like hiring someone or allowing someone into an institution, you have the time to deliberate over it. But with anything where there’s little time to do that, some form of profiling may work the better for us.
Of course, we’d have to profile in many, many ways. Profiling based on skin colour is done (any racial thing actually) because it’s easy to do, not so easy to have some other distinguishing feature that may be linked somehow.
If we don’t like their policy however, we’re not forced to buy it. The power of consumers will decide what they do. Evidently, they haven’t overwhelmingly decided against, because the policy is still there.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 8:39 am
had a flight last year where an accompanied child kept kicking the back of my seat so I growled at her and made her cry. So I think I should go below David on that list.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 8:58 am
All men are not pedophiles but men are more likely to be pedophiles than women.
If an airline is responsible for a child as that child travels then they have to place that child in the lowest possible risk situation as possible.
I do agree though that asking people to move is silly and offensive. They should just seat children away from men using their seat booking system in advance.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 9:05 am
I think that Air New Zealand shol dbe able to allocate seating how they like.
What seems like the *real* problem to me is that they have allocated this ‘inappropriate’ seating in their booking system.
Their bokking software has a bug.
If passengers are inconvenienced by bugs in your software, shouldn’t there be some benefit?
Perhaps the man should be upgraded to business class to make up for the mistake?
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 9:23 am
This really is a non-issue. It is risk minimisation, and yes, I can hear you groaning. However, this policy avoids Benson-Pope type problems. Did he or didn’t he? If a bloke was never sitting next to a child, an offence couldn’t have taken place (at least not during the time of the flight). It protects both the child as well as the man! Where is the harm? Some people get too upset over nothing.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 9:25 am
I notice your first option is alone. While I would hate to be stuck next to a kid on a plane (this is not prejudice, when I was 14 I had to sit next to a 7 year old for half a trip back from LA, her parents eventually moved her,) I bet that the kid wouldn’t want to be sitting alone too. They should be travelling with someone – if not a parent then at least a brother or sister or friend. Then they could sit together.
Vote:And why would an elderly man be any better than a younger one?
Anyway, when I was a kid (not all that long ago) I used to have to go by bus, the few occasions when I travelled alone (to see my Nan). Far more of an adventure, and cost mum and dad far less. And you get to sit next to whoever you choose.
February 28th, 2006 at 10:01 am
Heaven forbid I ever have to sit next to a kid on a flight.However it amuses me to see the usual suspects attempting to excuse a straight out breach of every human rights charter or law.As some have pointed out if the airline has a good booking sytem then it can take care of the problem in advance so noone needs to know.But to have a hostie coming up to me or anyother man and say “You have to move to another seat because you arent allowed to sit next to a kid” is offensive.Just as well Air New Zealand are operating in a Muzzie country I can see it now Their HQ would be burning and the senior staff would be fleeing into hiding with fatwas on them.Angry men would be marching in the streets firing guns into the air.
Consistency in applying laws is a hall mark of a civilised society
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 11:09 am
Exactly GD. I’m all in favour of a preference system for allocating seats but a “ban” on men next to children and asking passengers to swap seats is incredibly offensive.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 11:42 am
I tend to agree with you DPF, but you have to admit that running to the Human Rights Commission about the offence caused to you buy such a situation is remarkably.. well… PC, isn’t it? After all, there are statistical and legal reasons for the policy, it’s not like airlines just hate men on principle. The only reason that it is troubling is that it doesn’t sit well with those nice politically correct principles of equal treatment and minimising offence caused by your actions. I’m all in favour of such principles, but I thought Mapp’s job was to eradicate such tree-hugging hippy nonsense?
Seriously, does anybody think Mapp has a leg to stand on here?
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
When this non-story broke I was surprised that everyone rushed to the assumption that it was about paedophilia at all. I would actually assume it was simply about keeping the child happy to avoid them bawling for half the flight. As a child I would rather not have been next to some angry businessman, not because he would have flopped out his chop, but because he would have ignored me and been a little more scary than some nice old marm.
But ah well, I guess when you have something as stupid as a PC eradicator instead of important things like economic and social policy, you tend to get all shrill about the pettiest occurrences. Surprisingly quiet on the Danish cartoons front though, even though that controversy could actually be worth a damn.
When you’re on a flight you do what the airline tells you, it’s that fucken simple. The staff probably don’t even know the reason for half of the little decisions, and the probably have a company line to tell you, which is likely to be utter bullshit anyway. Like the fact you have to turn off your mp3 player because it interferes with their equipment. That’s bullshit, but tough, their rules.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
Ah Ben You say this is a petty matter.Well for many the cartoons were But they werent to the Muslims or in fact many people in NZ Thats the rub As I have posted before What is offensive to some wont be offensive to others.Its all a matter of opinion and the right to that opinion and the right to express it Turning back to the airlines As I posted above the smart thing for them to have done was say nothing and use their booking system to achieve the goal But they didnt They gave me and others who are anti PC and anti the UN and other crapola charters the ammo to launch a scud missile Having painted a target on their foreheads the opportunity was too good to miss.You see we simply cant resist the chance to show the crap PC brigade who dumb and stupid they are.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
They gave me and others who are anti PC and anti the UN and other crapola charters the ammo to launch a scud missile Having painted a target on their foreheads the opportunity was too good to miss.
Unless your weapon of choice is a scud missile, of course.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
gd, if you’re serious about not looking dumb, then finding the fullstop key on your keyboard would be a good place to start. That’s about how petty this airline scandal thing is.
LOL, yes a scud is a poor choice if you actually wanted to hit anything smaller than a suburb. Perhaps you should launch at Ponsonby, on the statistical chance you’ll hit some gays, thus doing your bit for the war on PC. If it accidentally takes out the National party office, call it collateral damage. No one on the ground will cry. Lattes will be raised all round, in PC cheers. For he/she’s a jolly good person and all that.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
“You see we simply cant resist the chance to show the crap PC brigade who dumb and stupid they are.”
I think you wrote “who” instead of “how” and “they” instead of “we”.
Beside that, please, explain to me how this is PC. I think all the bitching and whining to the Human Rights Commission about how it offends you as a man is considerably more PC. Come on, you’re the “We’re not PC, we can offend who we like” brigade, take it like a man…
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
“You see we simply cant resist the chance to show the crap PC brigade who dumb and stupid they are”
By being even more PC, dumber & stupider. Maybe you should resist & look a little cleverer some time.
Why should the airline loosen its rules for ensuring a minor’s safety for fear of insulting a man?
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
What a sad and humourless lot the PC brigade are
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
ditto for antiPC brigade
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
What a sad and humourless lot the PC brigade are
Hey, I thought the scud joke was pretty good.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Um… you would know. You’re just in denial gd.
Bit of a non-sequiteur though, surely? Not to mention dodging the topic with a little unfounded derision.
Not looking tooo clever so far!
And I can see the irony & humour.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
“Come on, you’re the “We’re not PC, we can offend who we like” brigade, take it like a man…”
Hah! Err is dead on. Take it like a man gd, & remember – cowboys DON’T cry!”
hee hee (see, fine appreciation of humour)
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
llew, I can still hear gd tittering over ‘cheeky darkies’. You’re just an indoctrinated lefty for not finding his ‘muzzies’ cracks side splitting.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Besides… if the airline wants to insult & offend men, isn’t that their right? Freedom of expression and all that?
I mean… I’m sure I read something along those lines somewhere….
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
If you could walk on either side of the street, all other things being equal. One side has a sweet looking little old lady tottling along, the other has a big black guy with a shaven head, many tattoos, a leather jacket, etc. You’d suspect the latter to be more dangerous – there’s the possibility that the little old lady is actually a serial killer and the big guy is warm and friendly. But we don’t have any of this information. You rely on your stereotypes to keep it safe – they may occasionally be inaccurate, but it’s the best you can do in *THOSE* scenarios.
Of course, some “equality” people would probably label that a “hate crime”.
Vote: